ORDER : This appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant, namely, Ramashray Prasad @ Ramashray Prasad Singh who stood convicted under Sections 307 and 323 I.P.C and was ordered to go rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 307 I.P.C and six months under Section 323 I.P.C however, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and he was acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 504 and 341 IPC vide judgment dated 11.05.2001 passed in S. T. No. 137 of 1995 by Sri Ramanuj Narayan, learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj. 2. The case of the prosecution, as has been recorded in the written report of the informant Mungeshwar Ram (PW.4), addressed to the OfficerinCharge, Sadar Daltonganj, Palamau is that on 19.02.1994 at about 9 A.M while the informant along with his family members was in his residential house at Abadganj, P.S. Daltonganj, accused Ramashray Prasad Singh, Bhola Ram, Shyamu Ram, Ram Singh, Malti Devi, Asha Devi and Kaili Devi, all armed with lathi and danda, came to the house of the informant. Ramashray Prasad Singh (appellant) pressed the neck of the informant in order to kill him and also assaulted his elder brother Yogeshwar Ram with Lathi on his leg and abused him. All accused persons threatened to shoot at night. On halla, the neighbourers assembled there and thereafter, accused persons fled away. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Sadar Daltonganj P. S. Case No. 60 of 1994 dated 19.02.1994 was instituted under Sections 147, 323, 504, 341 IPC. The police after investigation submitted final form on 27.02.1994 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 341, 307 IPC. Subsequently, on 22.05.1998 charges under Sections 147, 323, 504, 341 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC were framed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau. 4. Prosecution, in support of its case, has altogether examined six witnesses, namely, PW.1 Kushma Devi, PW.2 Jugeshwar Ram, PW.3 Teju Ram, PW.4 Mungeshwar Ram (informant), PW.5 Dr. Panna Lal Pandey and PW.6 Surendra Prasad Singh (I.O). 5. Ext.1 is the fardbeyan, Ext.2 is the injury report of Mungeshwar Ram, Ext. 2/1 is the injury report of Jugeshwar Ram, Ext.3 is the formal F.I.R, Exts. 4 and 4/1 are the signature of the Sub Inspector Damodar Ram on the injury reports. 6. Panna Lal Pandey and PW.6 Surendra Prasad Singh (I.O). 5. Ext.1 is the fardbeyan, Ext.2 is the injury report of Mungeshwar Ram, Ext. 2/1 is the injury report of Jugeshwar Ram, Ext.3 is the formal F.I.R, Exts. 4 and 4/1 are the signature of the Sub Inspector Damodar Ram on the injury reports. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant while referring to the evidence of PW.4 submitted that PW.4 is the informant of the case and in his examination in chief he has stated that the appellant pressed his neck in order to kill him and when PW.2 came to save PW.4, the appellant also assaulted him by stick however, it has been further stated by PW.4 that the appellant was his tenant and as there was certain dispute, partition suit and proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C were going on between the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the evidence of PW.5 Dr. Panna Lal Pandey, who on examination found the following injuries on the person of the informant Mungeshwar Ram (PW.4): (i) Abrasion½” x½” on the middle of left side of neck. (ii) Bruise 1” x 1” on the right big toe. The Doctor has also found the following injuries on the person of Jugeshwar Ram (PW.2): (i) Abrasion½” x½” on the dorsum of right foot. (ii) Bruise 1” x 1/2” on the middle of back of left thigh. 8. In the opinion of the Doctor (PW.5), all the injuries sustained by both PW.4 and PW.2 respectively were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. So, as per the evidence of PW.5, no case under Section 307 I.P.C is made out against the appellant, as he had no intention or knowledge to commit murder. It was further submitted that no independent witness, save and except the close relatives, has been examined by the prosecution, although the occurrence had taken place at a busy place at 9 A.M. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the evidence of PW.6 (I.O), who has stated that during the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses Teju Ram (PW.3) who was declared hostile and Pappu Bhuian who was not examined as prosecution witness, which cast doubt in the case of the prosecution. Referring to the evidence of PW.6 in paragraph 7 of the evidence, it has been stated that in the cross examination, the I.O. has admitted the fact that the persons, who reside within the boundary of the place of occurrence, have not been examined by him. 9. Besides the above submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1965 SC 843 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “Penal Code (1860, Ss.307 and 324 - Accused causing injury to A in a vital region with a knife - Fact that no vital organ of A has been cut would not by itself be sufficient to take the act of accused out of the purview of S. 307 - But in order to bring the offence home to accused the prosecution must establish that his intention was one of the three kinds mentioned in S. 300 - State of mind of accused has to be deduced from surrounding circumstances and motive would be a relevant circumstance - Evidence not sufficient to establish with certainty existence of requisite intention or knowledge of accused - Accused can be convicted only under S. 324 and not under S. 307. AIR 1961 SC 1782 and AIR 1932 Bom 279 and 15 Bom LR 991, Rel. on. 4 Bom HC (Cri) 17, Not followed. (Paras 6, 7 and 10)” 10. It has further been submitted that for making out a case under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must establish that his intention was one of the three kinds mentioned under Section 300 IPC, which is lacking in this case. It has been further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case under Section 307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and learned Trial Court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter. Thus, the judgment of convection and the order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court is liable to be set aside. 11. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that admittedly the injuries received by PW.4 were on the vital part i.e. on the neck which has been supported by the Doctor PW5. 11. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that admittedly the injuries received by PW.4 were on the vital part i.e. on the neck which has been supported by the Doctor PW5. So, relying on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Balram Bama Patil & Ors. reported in AIR 1983 SC 305 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that merely because the injury received by the victim was in the nature of a simple hurt, offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P and after perusing the materials and the evidence on record and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on by learned counsel for the appellant, the admitted case is that the informant received injury on his neck which is simple in nature. The Doctor has opined that it can be caused by fall on hard surface. It was up to the prosecution to establish that the intention of the appellant in causing injury was under any of the three kinds referred to in Section 300 IPC, as has been laid down in the light of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarju Prasad (supra). So, I am of the considered opinion that learned Trial Court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter. So far as conviction under Section 307 IPC is concerned, it does not sustain in the eye of law. However, in view of the evidence of the informant (PW.4) read with the evidence of PW8 (Doctor), conviction under Section 323 IPC is upheld. Since it is a case of the year 1994 and more than 22 years have passed, instead of directing the appellant to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 323 IPC, the appellant is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/ in terms of the provision of Section 357 Cr.P.C. and also in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2001) 10 SCC 504 which suggests as under: “Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 320 and 357 - Offences under Ss. 10,000/ in terms of the provision of Section 357 Cr.P.C. and also in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2001) 10 SCC 504 which suggests as under: “Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 320 and 357 - Offences under Ss. 323/343/355 and 365 IPC - Compromise between the parties - Maintaining the conviction of appellants under the said sections, sentence reduced to the period already undergone - Sentence of fine and imprisonment in default of payment of fine not interfered with - Out of the fine paid, Rs.25,000 directed to be paid to each of the two injured persons - Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 323/343/355 and 365 - Reduction of sentence due to compromise between the parties.” 13. With the above modification, this appeal stands allowed. The amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/ shall be deposited by the appellant in the Court below within six weeks from the date of the judgment. If the fine is deposited by the appellant in terms of the provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C., the Trial Court shall give due notice to the informant and pay the said amount to him after proper verification with in further period of four weeks. If the amount of fine is deposited by the appellant within the aforesaid period, he shall be discharged from the liability of bailbond. In default of nonpayment of fine, the appellant has to undergo R.I for six months.